Medicaid Eligibility Loss Among Dual-Eligible Beneficiaries Before and During COVID-19 Public Health Emergency.

Importance: Medicaid coverage loss can substantially compromise access to and affordability of health care for dual-eligible beneficiaries. The extent to which this population lost Medicaid coverage before and during the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) and the characteristics of beneficiaries more at risk for coverage loss are currently not well known. Objective: To assess the loss of Medicaid coverage among dual-eligible beneficiaries before and during the first year of the PHE, and to examine beneficiary-level and plan-level factors associated with heightened likelihood of losing Medicaid. Design, Setting, and Participants: This repeated cross-sectional study used national Medicare data to estimate annual rates of Medicaid loss among dual-eligible beneficiaries before (2015 to 2019) and during the PHE (2020). Individuals who were dual eligible for Medicare and Medicaid at the beginning of a given year and who continuously received low-income subsidies for Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage were included in the sample. Multivariable regression models were used to examine beneficiary-level and plan-level factors associated with Medicaid loss. Data analyses were conducted between March 2023 and October 2023. Exposure: Onset of PHE. Main Outcomes and Measures: Loss of Medicaid for at least 1 month within a year. Results: Sample included 56 172 736 dual-eligible beneficiary-years between 2015 and 2020. In 2020, most dual-eligible beneficiaries were aged over 65 years (5 984 420 [61.1%]), female (5 868 866 [59.9%]), non-Hispanic White (4 928 035 [50.3%]), full-benefit eligible (6 837 815 [69.8%]), and enrolled in traditional Medicare (5 343 537 [54.6%]). The adjusted proportion of dual-eligible beneficiaries losing Medicaid for at least 1 month increased from 6.6% in 2015 to 7.3% in 2019 and then dropped to 2.3% in 2020. Between 2015 and 2019, dual-eligible beneficiaries who were older (ages 55-64 years: -1.4%; 95% CI, -1.8% to -1.0%; ages 65-74 years: -2.0%; 95% CI, -2.5% to -1.5%; ages 75 and older: -4.5%; 95% CI, -5.0% to -4.0%), disabled (-0.8%; 95% CI, -1.1% to -0.6%), and in integrated care programs were less likely to lose Medicaid. In 2020, the disparities within each of these demographic groups narrowed significantly. Notably, while Black (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.2% to 0.9%) and Hispanic (0.7%; 95% CI, 0.3% to 1.2%) dual-eligible beneficiaries were more likely to lose Medicaid than their non-Hispanic White counterparts between 2015 and 2019, such gap was eliminated for Black beneficiaries and narrowed for Hispanic beneficiaries in 2020. Conclusions and Relevance: During the PHE, Medicaid coverage loss declined significantly among dual-eligible beneficiaries, and disparities were mitigated across subgroups. As the PHE unwinds, it is crucial for policymakers to implement strategies to minimize Medicaid coverage disruptions and racial and ethnic disparities, especially given that loss of Medicaid was slightly increasing over time before the PHE.

The Rise and Risks of Medicare Advantage "Affinity Plans".

This Viewpoint discusses the proliferation of Medicare Advantage plans targeting specific groups of individuals and whether these plans will improve quality of care for beneficiaries.

Trends in observation stays for Medicare beneficiaries with and without Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.

BACKGROUND: There has been a marked rise in the use of observation care for Medicare beneficiaries visiting the emergency department (ED) in recent years. Whether trends in observation use differ for people with Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease-related dementias (AD/ADRD) is unknown. METHODS: Using a national 20% sample of Medicare beneficiaries ages 68+ from 2012 to 2018, we compared trends in ED visits and observation stays by AD/ADRD status for beneficiaries visiting the ED. We then examined the degree to which trends differed by nursing home (NH) residency status, assigning beneficiaries to four groups: AD/ADRD residing in NH (AD/ADRD+ NH+), AD/ADRD not residing in NH (AD/ADRD+ NH-), no AD/ADRD residing in NH (AD/ADRD- NH+), and no AD/ADRD not residing in NH (AD/ADRD- NH-). RESULTS: Of 7,489,780 unique beneficiaries, 18.6% had an AD/ADRD diagnosis. Beneficiaries with AD/ADRD had more than double the number of ED visits per 1000 in all years compared to those without AD/ADRD and saw a faster adjusted increase over time (+26.7 vs. +8.2 visits/year; p < 0.001 for interaction). The annual increase in the adjusted proportion of ED visits ending in observation was also greater among people with AD/ADRD (+0.78%/year, 95% CI 0.77-0.80%) compared to those without AD/ADRD (+0.63%/year, 95% CI 0.59-0.66%; p < 0.001 for interaction). Observation utilization was greatest for the AD/ADRD+ NH+ population and lowest for the AD/ADRD- NH- population, but the AD/ADRD+ NH- group saw the greatest increase in observation stays over time (+15.4 stays per 1000 people per year, 95% CI 15.0-15.7). CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries with AD/ADRD have seen a disproportionate increase in observation utilization in recent years, driven by both an increase in ED visits and an increase in the proportion of ED visits ending in observation.

Improving health equity through health care systems research.

OBJECTIVE: To describe health equity research priorities for health care delivery systems and delineate a research and action agenda that generates evidence-based solutions to persistent racial and ethnic inequities in health outcomes. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: This project was conducted as a component of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) stakeholder engaged process to develop an Equity Agenda and Action Plan to guide priority setting to advance health equity. Recommendations were developed and refined based on expert input, evidence review, and stakeholder engagement. Participating stakeholders included experts from academia, health care organizations, industry, and government. STUDY DESIGN: Expert group consensus, informed by stakeholder engagement and targeted evidence review. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Priority themes were derived iteratively through (1) brainstorming and idea reduction, (2) targeted evidence review of candidate themes, (3) determination of preliminary themes; (4) input on preliminary themes from stakeholders attending AHRQ's 2022 Health Equity Summit; and (5) and refinement of themes based on that input. The final set of research and action recommendations was determined by authors' consensus. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Health care delivery systems have contributed to racial and ethnic disparities in health care. High quality research is needed to inform health care delivery systems approaches to undo systemic barriers and inequities. We identified six priority themes for research; (1) institutional leadership, culture, and workforce; (2) data-driven, culturally tailored care; (3) health equity targeted performance incentives; (4) health equity-informed approaches to health system consolidation and access; (5) whole person care; (6) and whole community investment. We also suggest cross-cutting themes regarding research workforce and research timelines. CONCLUSIONS: As the nation's primary health services research agency, AHRQ can advance equitable delivery of health care by funding research and disseminating evidence to help transform the organization and delivery of health care.

Integrating Medicare and Medicaid Coverage for Dual Eligibles-Recommendations for Reform.

This Viewpoint highlights costly inefficiencies in delivery of care to patients who qualify to receive both Medicare and Medicaid and proposes more effective care models.

High-performing primary care clinics across high-need, high-cost Medicare populations.

BACKGROUND: To reduce spending and improve quality, some primary care clinics in the USA have focused on high-need, high-cost (HNHC) Medicare beneficiaries, which include clinically distinct subpopulations: older adults with frailty, adults under 65 years with disability and beneficiaries with major complex chronic conditions. Nationally, the extent to which primary care clinics are high-performing 'Bright Spots'-clinics that achieve favourable outcomes at lower costs across HNHC beneficiary subpopulations-is not known. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of primary care clinics that perform highly on commonly used cost or quality measures for HNHC subpopulations. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional study using Medicare claims data from 2014 to 2015. MAIN MEASURES: Annual spending, avoidable hospitalisations for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions, treat-and-release emergency department visits, all-cause 30-day unplanned hospital readmission rates and healthy days at home. Clinics were high performing when they ranked in the top quartile of performance for ≥4 measures for an HNHC subpopulation. 'Bright Spot' clinics were in the top quartile of performance for ≥4 measures across all the HNHC subpopulations. KEY RESULTS: A total of 2770 primary care clinics cared for at least 10 beneficiaries from each of the three HNHC subpopulations (adults under 65 with disability, older adults with frailty and beneficiaries with major complex chronic conditions). Less than 4% of clinics were high performing for each HNHC subpopulation; <0.5% of clinics were in the top quartile for all five measures for a given subpopulation. No clinics met the definition of a primary care 'Bright Spot'. CONCLUSIONS: High-performing primary care clinics that achieved favourable health outcomes or lower costs across subpopulations of HNHC beneficiaries in the Medicare programme in 2015 were rare. Efforts are needed to support primary care clinics in providing optimal care to HNHC subpopulations.

Rapid Enrollment Growth In 'Look-Alike' Dual-Eligible Special Needs Plans: A Threat To Integrated Care.

Policy makers are increasingly investing in efforts to better integrate Medicare and Medicaid services for people who are eligible for both programs, including expanding Dual-Eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs). In recent years, however, a potential threat to integration has emerged in the form of D-SNP "look-alike" plans, which are conventional Medicare Advantage plans that are marketed toward and primarily enroll dual eligibles but are not subject to federal regulations requiring integrated Medicaid services. To date, limited evidence exists documenting national enrollment trends in look-alike plans or the characteristics of dual eligibles in these plans. We found that look-alike plans experienced rapid enrollment growth among dual eligibles during the period 2013-20, increasing from 20,900 dual eligibles across four states to 220,860 dual eligibles across seventeen states, for an elevenfold increase. Nearly one-third of dual eligibles in look-alike plans were previously in integrated care programs. Compared with D-SNPs, look-alike plans were more likely to enroll dual eligibles who were older, Hispanic, and from disadvantaged communities. Our findings suggest that look-alike plans have the potential to compromise national efforts to integrate care delivery for dual eligibles, including vulnerable subgroups who may benefit the most from integrated coverage.

Trends in healthy days at home for Medicare beneficiaries using the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Older adults, particularly those with Alzheimer's Disease and Alzheimer's Disease Related Dementias (AD/ADRD), have high rates of emergency department (ED) visits and are at risk for poor outcomes. How best to measure quality of care for this population has been debated. Healthy Days at Home (HDAH) is a broad outcome measure reflecting mortality and time spent in facility-based healthcare settings versus home. We examined trends in 30-day HDAH for Medicare beneficiaries after visiting the ED and compared trends by AD/ADRD status. METHODS: We identified all ED visits among a national 20% sample of Medicare beneficiaries ages 68 and older from 2012 to 2018. For each visit, we calculated 30-day HDAH by subtracting mortality days and days spent in facility-based healthcare settings within 30 days of an ED visit. We calculated adjusted rates of HDAH using linear regression, accounting for hospital random effects, visit diagnosis, and patient characteristics. We compared rates of HDAH among beneficiaries with and without AD/ADRD, including accounting for nursing home (NH) residency status. RESULTS: We found fewer adjusted 30-day HDAH after ED visits among patients with AD/ADRD compared to those without AD/ADRD (21.6 vs. 23.0). This difference was driven by a greater number of mortality days, SNF days, and, to a lesser degree, hospital observation days, ED visits, and long-term hospital days. From 2012 to 2018, individuals living with AD/ADRD had fewer HDAH each year but a greater mean annual increase over time (p < 0.001 for the interaction between year and AD/ADRD status). Being a NH resident was associated with fewer adjusted 30-day HDAH for beneficiaries with and without AD/ADRD. CONCLUSIONS: Beneficiaries with AD/ADRD had fewer HDAH following an ED visit but saw moderately greater increases in HDAH over time compared to those without AD/ADRD. This trend was visit driven by declining mortality and utilization of inpatient and post-acute care.

Use of High-Risk Medications Among Older Adults Enrolled in Medicare Advantage Plans vs Traditional Medicare.

Importance: Limiting the use of high-risk medications (HRMs) among older adults is a national priority to provide a high quality of care for older beneficiaries of both Medicare Advantage and traditional fee-for-service Medicare Part D plans. Objective: To evaluate the differences in the rate of HRM prescription fills among beneficiaries of traditional Medicare vs Medicare Advantage Part D plans and to examine the extent to which these differences change over time and the patient-level factors associated with higher rates of HRMs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used a 20% sample of Medicare Part D data on filled drug prescriptions from 2013 to 2017 and a 40% sample from 2018. The sample comprised Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 years or older who were enrolled in Medicare Advantage or traditional Medicare Part D plans. Data were analyzed between April 1, 2022, and April 15, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of unique HRMs prescribed to older Medicare beneficiaries per 1000 beneficiaries. Linear regression models were used to model the primary outcome, adjusting for patient characteristics and county characteristics and including hospital referral region fixed effects. Results: The sample included 5 595 361 unique Medicare Advantage beneficiaries who were propensity score-matched on a year-by-year basis to 6 578 126 unique traditional Medicare beneficiaries between 2013 and 2018, resulting in 13 704 348 matched pairs of beneficiary-years. The traditional Medicare vs Medicare Advantage cohorts were similar in age (mean [SD] age, 75.65 [7.53] years vs 75.60 [7.38] years), proportion of males (8 127 261 [59.3%] vs 8 137 834 [59.4%]; standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.002), and predominant race and ethnicity (77.1% vs 77.4% non-Hispanic White; SMD = 0.05). On average in 2013, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries filled 135.1 (95% CI, 128.4-142.6) unique HRMs per 1000 beneficiaries compared with 165.6 (95% CI, 158.1-172.3) HRMs per 1000 beneficiaries for traditional Medicare. In 2018, the rate of HRMs had decreased to 41.5 (95% CI, 38.2-44.2) HRMs per 1000 beneficiaries in Medicare Advantage and to 56.9 (95% CI, 54.1-60.1) HRMs per 1000 beneficiaries in traditional Medicare. Across the study period, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries received 24.3 (95% CI, 20.2-28.3) fewer HRMs per 1000 beneficiaries per year compared with traditional Medicare beneficiaries. Female, American Indian or Alaska Native, and White populations were more likely to receive HRMs than other groups. Conclusion and Relevance: Results of this study showed that HRM rates were consistently lower among Medicare Advantage than traditional Medicare beneficiaries. Higher use of HRMs among female, American Indian or Alaska Native, and White populations is a concerning disparity that requires further attention.

Enrollment And Characteristics Of Dual-Eligible Medicare And Medicaid Beneficiaries In Integrated Care Programs.

Integrated care programs (ICPs) are meant to make Medicare and Medicaid coverage for dual-eligible beneficiaries work more seamlessly. Evidence is limited on ICP enrollment trends and the characteristics of dual-eligible beneficiaries who enroll in these programs-specifically, the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly, Medicare Advantage (MA) Fully Integrated Dual-Eligible Special Needs Plans, and state demonstration Medicare-Medicaid plans. Using national data, we evaluated changes in ICP enrollment between 2013 and 2020 and compared the demographic characteristics of beneficiaries in these programs relative to the characteristics of beneficiaries not in them. The proportion of dual-eligible beneficiaries in ICPs increased from 2.0 percent in 2013 to 9.4 percent in 2020. However, nonintegrated or partially integrated coordination-only MA plans experienced the plurality of growth in enrollment of dual-eligible beneficiaries. Relative to non-ICP fee-for-service Medicare, beneficiaries in ICPs were more likely to be Black and Hispanic versus White and were less likely to be rural, younger, or disabled. Policy makers should diligently monitor growth in ICPs and less integrated dual-eligible plans in MA while also evaluating their impact on equity, spending, and quality of care.

Changes in Medicare Accountable Care Organization Spending, Utilization, and Quality Performance 2 Years Into the COVID-19 Pandemic.

This cohort study uses data from the Medicare Shared Savings Program to assess changes in spending, utilization, and quality performance from before the COVID-19 pandemic (2019) to year 2 of the pandemic (2021).

Association Between Emergency Physician's Age and Mortality of Medicare Patients Aged 65 to 89 Years After Emergency Department Visit.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between emergency physicians' ages and patient mortality after emergency department visits. METHODS: This observational study used a 20% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 to 89 years treated by emergency physicians at EDs from 2016 to 2017. We investigated whether 7-day mortality after ED visits differed by the age of the emergency physician, adjusting for patient and physician characteristics and hospital fixed effects. RESULTS: We observed 2,629,464 ED visits treated by 32,570 emergency physicians (mean age 43.5). We found that patients treated by younger emergency physicians had lower mortality rates compared with those treated by older physicians. Adjusted 7-day mortality was 1.33% for patients treated by emergency physicians aged less than 40 years, 1.36% (adjusted difference, 0.03%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.001% to 0.06%) for physicians ages 40 to 49, 1.40% (0.08%; 95% CI 0.04% to 0.12%) for physicians ages 50 to 59, and 1.43% (0.11%; 95% CI 0.06% to 0.16%) for those with a physician age of 60 years and more. Similar patterns were observed when stratified by the patient's disposition (discharged vs admitted), and the association was more pronounced for patients with higher severity of illness. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare patients aged 65 to 89 years treated by emergency physicians aged under 40 years had lower 7-day mortality rates than those treated by physicians aged 50 to 59 years and 60 years or older within the same hospital. Potential mechanisms explaining the association between emergency physician age and patient mortality (eg, differences in training received and other unobservable patient/physician characteristics) are uncertain and require further study.

Effect of Medicare Advantage on Hospital Readmission and Mortality Rankings.

BACKGROUND: Medicare links hospital performance on readmissions and mortality to payment solely on the basis of outcomes among fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries. Whether including Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries, who account for nearly half of all Medicare beneficiaries, in the evaluation of hospital performance affects rankings is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine if the inclusion of MA beneficiaries in readmission and mortality measures reclassifies hospital performance rankings compared with current measures. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Population-based. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitals participating in the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program or Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program. MEASUREMENTS: Using the 100% Medicare files for FFS and MA claims, the authors calculated 30-day risk-adjusted readmissions and mortality for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and pneumonia on the basis of only FFS beneficiaries and then both FFS and MA beneficiaries. Hospitals were divided into quintiles of performance based on FFS beneficiaries only, and the proportion of hospitals that were reclassified to a different performance group with the inclusion of MA beneficiaries was calculated. RESULTS: Of the hospitals in the top-performing quintile for readmissions and mortality based on FFS beneficiaries, between 21.6% and 30.2% were reclassified to a lower-performing quintile with the inclusion of MA beneficiaries. Similar proportions of hospitals were reclassified from the bottom performance quintile to a higher one across all measures and conditions. Hospitals with a higher proportion of MA beneficiaries were more likely to improve in performance rankings. LIMITATION: Hospital performance measurement and risk adjustment differed slightly from those used by Medicare. CONCLUSION: Approximately 1 in 4 top-performing hospitals is reclassified to a lower performance group when MA beneficiaries are included in the evaluation of hospital readmissions and mortality. These findings suggest that Medicare's current value-based programs provide an incomplete picture of hospital performance. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

Association Between Community-Level Social Risk and Spending Among Medicare Beneficiaries: Implications for Social Risk Adjustment and Health Equity.

Importance: Payers are increasingly using approaches to risk adjustment that incorporate community-level measures of social risk with the goal of better aligning value-based payment models with improvements in health equity. Objective: To examine the association between community-level social risk and health care spending and explore how incorporating community-level social risk influences risk adjustment for Medicare beneficiaries. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using data from a Medicare Advantage plan linked with survey data on self-reported social needs, this cross-sectional study estimated health care spending health care spending was estimated as a function of demographics and clinical characteristics, with and without the inclusion of Area Deprivation Index (ADI), a measure of community-level social risk. The study period was January to December 2019. All analyses were conducted from December 2021 to August 2022. Exposures: Census block group-level ADI. Main Outcomes and Measures: Regression models estimated total health care spending in 2019 and approximated different approaches to social risk adjustment. Model performance was assessed with overall model calibration (adjusted R2) and predictive accuracy (ratio of predicted to actual spending) for subgroups of potentially vulnerable beneficiaries. Results: Among a final study population of 61 469 beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 70.7 [8.9] years; 35 801 [58.2%] female; 48 514 [78.9%] White; 6680 [10.9%] with Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility; median [IQR] ADI, 61 [42-79]), ADI was weakly correlated with self-reported social needs (r = 0.16) and explained only 0.02% of the observed variation in spending. Conditional on demographic and clinical characteristics, every percentile increase in the ADI (ie, more disadvantage) was associated with a $11.08 decrease in annual spending. Directly incorporating ADI into a risk-adjustment model that used demographics and clinical characteristics did not meaningfully improve model calibration (adjusted R2 = 7.90% vs 7.93%) and did not significantly reduce payment inequities for rural beneficiaries and those with a high burden of self-reported social needs. A postestimation adjustment of predicted spending for dual-eligible beneficiaries residing in high ADI areas also did not significantly reduce payment inequities for rural beneficiaries or beneficiaries with self-reported social needs. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of Medicare beneficiaries, the ADI explained little variation in health care spending, was negatively correlated with spending conditional on demographic and clinical characteristics, and was poorly correlated with self-reported social risk factors. This prompts caution and nuance when using community-level measures of social risk such as the ADI for social risk adjustment within Medicare value-based payment programs.

Evaluation of Potentially Avoidable Acute Care Utilization Among Patients Insured by Medicare Advantage vs Traditional Medicare.

Importance: Medicare Advantage plans have strong incentives to reduce potentially wasteful health care, including costly acute care visits for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (ACSCs). However, it remains unknown whether Medicare Advantage plans lower acute care use compared with traditional Medicare, or if it shifts patients from hospitalization to observation stays and emergency department (ED) direct discharges. Objective: To determine whether Medicare Advantage is associated with differential utilization of hospitalizations, observations, and ED direct discharges for ACSCs compared with traditional Medicare. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of US Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare beneficiaries from January 1 to December 31, 2018. Poisson regression models were used to compare risk-adjusted rates of Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare, controlling for patient demographic characteristics and clinical risk and including county fixed-effects. Data were analyzed between April 2021 and November 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospitalizations, observation stays, and ED direct discharges for ACSCs. Results: The study sample comprised 2 665 340 Medicare Advantage patients (mean [SD] age, 72.7 [9.8] years; 1 504 519 [56.4%] women; 1 859 067 [69.7%] White individuals) and 7 981 547 traditional Medicare patients (mean [SD] age, 71.2 [11.8] years; 4 232 201 [53.0%] women; 6 176 239 [77.4%] White individuals). Medicare Advantage patients had lower risk of hospitalization for ACSCs compared with traditional Medicare patients (relative risk [RR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.93-0.95), primarily owing to fewer hospitalizations for acute conditions (eg, pneumonia). Medicare Advantage patients had a higher risk of ED direct discharges (RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.43-1.45) and observation stays (RR, 2.38; 95% CI, 2.34-2.41) for ACSCs vs traditional Medicare patients. Overall, Medicare Advantage patients were at higher risk of needing care for an ACSC (hospitalization, ED direct discharge, or observation stay) than traditional Medicare patients (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.30-1.31). Within the Medicare Advantage population, patients in health maintenance organizations (HMOs) were at lower risk of ACSC-related hospitalization compared with patients in its preferred provider organizations (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98); however, those in the HMOs had a higher risk of ED direct discharge (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.07-1.09) and observation stay (overall RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02-1.12). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study of Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare patients with ACSCs indicate that apparent gains in lowering rates of potentially avoidable acute care have been associated with shifting inpatient care to settings such as ED direct discharges and observation stays.

Association of Academic Medical Center Presence With Clinical Outcomes at Neighboring Community Hospitals Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

Importance: Studies suggest that academic medical centers (AMCs) have better outcomes than nonteaching hospitals. However, whether AMCs have spillover benefits for patients treated at neighboring community hospitals is unknown. Objective: To examine whether market-level AMC presence is associated with outcomes for patients treated at nonteaching hospitals within the same markets. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, population-based cohort study assessed traditional Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older discharged from US acute care hospitals between 2015 and 2017 (100% sample). Data were analyzed from August 2021 to December 2022. Exposures: The primary exposure was market-level AMC presence. Health care markets (ie, hospital referral regions) were categorized by AMC presence (percentage of hospitalizations at AMCs) as follows: no presence (0%), low presence (>0% to 20%), moderate presence (>20% to 35%), and high presence (>35%). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were 30-day and 90-day mortality and healthy days at home (HDAH), a composite outcome reflecting mortality and time spent in facility-based health care settings. Results: There were 22 509 824 total hospitalizations, with 18 865 229 (83.8%) at non-AMCs. The median (IQR) age of patients was 78 (71-85) years, and 12 568 230 hospitalizations (55.8%) were among women. Of 306 hospital referral regions, 191 (62.4%) had no AMCs, 61 (19.9%) had 1 AMC, and 55 (17.6%) had 2 or more AMCs. Markets characteristics differed significantly by category of AMC presence, including mean population, median income, proportion of White residents, and physicians per population. Compared with markets with no AMC presence, receiving care at a non-AMC in a market with greater AMC presence was associated with lower 30-day mortality (9.5% vs 10.1%; absolute difference, -0.7%; 95% CI, -1.0% to -0.4%; P < .001) and 90-day mortality (16.1% vs 16.9%; absolute difference, -0.8%; 95% CI, -1.2% to -0.4%; P < .001) and more HDAH at 30 days (16.49 vs 16.12 HDAH; absolute difference, 0.38 HDAH; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.64 HDAH; P = .005) and 90 days (61.08 vs 59.83 HDAH; absolute difference, 1.25 HDAH; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.92 HDAH; P < .001), after adjustment. There was no association between market-level AMC presence and mortality for patients treated at AMCs themselves. Conclusions and Relevance: AMCs may have spillover effects on outcomes for patients treated at non-AMCs, suggesting that they have a broader impact than is traditionally recognized. These associations are greatest in markets with the highest AMC presence and persist to 90 days.

Why the US spends more treating high-need high-cost patients: a comparative study of pricing and utilization of care in six high-income countries.

One of the most pressing challenges facing most health care systems is rising costs. As the population ages and the demand for health care services grows, there is a growing need to understand the drivers of these costs across systems. This paper attempts to address this gap by examining utilization and spending of the course of a year for two specific high-need high-cost patient types: a frail older person with a hip fracture and an older person with congestive heart failure and diabetes. Data on utilization and expenditure is collected across five health care settings (hospital, post-acute rehabilitation, primary care, outpatient specialty and drugs), in six countries (Canada (Ontario), France, Germany, Spain (Aragon), Sweden and the United States (fee for service Medicare) and used to construct treatment episode Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs) that compare prices using baskets of goods from the different care settings. The treatment episode PPPs suggest other countries have more similar volumes of care to the US as compared to other standardization approaches, suggesting that US prices account for more of the differential in US health care expenditures. The US also differs with regards to the share of expenditures across care settings, with post-acute rehab and outpatient speciality expenditures accounting for a larger share of the total relative to comparators.

Association of Clinical Setting With Sociodemographics and Outcomes Following Endovascular Femoropopliteal Artery Revascularization in the United States.

BACKGROUND: After the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services modified reimbursement rates for outpatient peripheral vascular intervention in 2008 with the intent of improving access to care, providers began to increasingly perform peripheral vascular interventions in privately owned office-based clinics. Little is known about the characteristics of patients treated in this setting and their long-term outcomes as compared with those treated in hospital-based centers. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, Medicare beneficiaries ≥66 years undergoing outpatient femoropopliteal peripheral vascular interventions in office-based clinics and hospital-based centers from 2015 to 2017 were identified. Sociodemographics, comorbidities, and institutional characteristics were compared across sites. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the adjusted associations between practice site location and outcomes. The primary outcome was the composite of major amputation or death analyzed through the end of follow-up. RESULTS: Among 134 869 patients, 29.9% were treated in office-based clinics and 70.1% in hospital-based centers. Patients treated in office-based clinics were more often Black (16.9% versus 11.9%), dually enrolled in Medicaid (26.3% versus 19.6%), and residents of lower-resourced regions (32.6% versus 25.6%). Over a median follow-up time of 800 days (interquartile range, 531-1119 days), patients treated in office-based clinics had reduced risks of major amputation or death compared with outpatients treated in hospital-based centers (hazard ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.89-0.95]). They also had lower adjusted all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.90-0.96]), major lower extremity amputation (hazard ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.79-0.89]), and all-cause hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.84-0.88]). These findings persisted after stratification by critical limb ischemia, race, dual enrollment, and regional socioeconomic status, as well as among operators treating patients in both clinical settings. CONCLUSIONS: In this large nationwide analysis of Medicare beneficiaries, office-based clinics treated a more socioeconomically disadvantaged population compared with hospital-based centers. Long-term outcomes were comparable between locations. As such, these clinics appear to be selecting lower-risk patients for outpatient peripheral vascular interventions, although there remains the possibility of unmeasured confounding.

Early changes in health coverage and access to dental care associated with Medicaid expansion under the COVID-19 pandemic.

The extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic has affected early changes in health coverage and access to dental care services in states that expanded Medicaid versus those that did not is currently not well known. Using data from the National Health Interview Survey, we found that, during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, states that had previously expanded their Medicaid programs under the Affordable Care Act had lower uninsurance rates for White low-income adults (-8.8 percentage points; 95% CI: -16.6, -1.0) and lower dental uninsurance rates for all low-income adults (-5.4 percentage points; 95% CI: -10.4, -0.5). Our findings also suggest that the combination of Medicaid expansion with coverage of adult dental benefits in Medicaid was associated with improved dental coverage and access to dental care during the pandemic. With the expiration of the public health emergency declaration, states are considering strategies to prevent disruptions in Medicaid coverage. Our study adds to the evidence of the importance of Medicaid expansion in stabilizing health coverage during a public health crisis.